Loan Charge in PMQ's today.

[DaveB]

Posted at 12:3812:38
Lib Dem MP asks for meeting with PM on 'loan charge' review

PMQs

Lib Dem Sir Ed Davey begins his question by paying tribute to "our friend" Paddy Ashdown - the former Lib Dem leader who died in December. He says he was loved and respected across the House and across the country.

He raises the uniting of MPs last night behind his amendment to the Finance Bill, which called for a review of the 'loan charge'.

He asks the PM to meet with him and a cross-party delegation of other MPs to discuss how this can be moved forward.

Mrs May says the government accepted the amendment, and the first stage would be for the Chancellor to sit down with MPs to discuss the issue.

MPs challenge Speaker's decision - BBC News

[northernladuk]

The Speaker grins the tight grin that he adopts when in a corner...

I know that one all too well

[webberg]

I think May promised Ed Davey a meeting and discussion with Philip Hammond.

Yesterday, rather than face a second defeat in a day, the Government accepted the amendment to the FB that requires them to report on the effect of the loan charge before the end of March.

It will be interesting to see if that review is published and if it varies from the TIIN already issued which basically says that there are no adverse effects on family breakdown or health. (Right).

Having the loan charge removed is the first step in a process. Next is having the liability from "loans" removed. That is an ongoing fight.

[Pebbles]

Loan charge?

Does this amendment promise a review of the loan charge, or promise a review of the new extended time limits for offshore matters, including a comparison with other time limits including for the loan charge - where normal time limits apply to a brand new tax charge. I'm far from convinced that what has been won, is worth anything at all despite the rhetoric and repeated statements that this is a review into the loan charge itself.

[dammit chloe]

Does this amendment promise a review of the loan charge, or promise a review of the new extended time limits for offshore matters, including a comparison with other time limits including for the loan charge - where normal time limits apply to a brand new tax charge. I'm far from convinced that what has been won, is worth anything at all despite the rhetoric and repeated statements that this is a review into the loan charge itself.

We shall see. If you follow the LCAG member forums you will be well aware of the reasons for the amendment being worded the way it was.

[smalldog]

call me pessimistic but i cant see anything changing. It didnt for S58 which was also retrospective and raised during the finance bill debate. The whole affect issue was sidestepped in favour of the usual "making people pay their fair share of tax" comments. To me its lip service, I do hope something comes of it but too many times ive seen this and sweet FA changes.

[Joolsey86]

call me pessimistic but i cant see anything changing. It didnt for S58 which was also retrospective and raised during the finance bill debate. The whole affect issue was sidestepped in favour of the usual "making people pay their fair share of tax" comments. To me its lip service, I do hope something comes of it but too many times ive seen this and sweet FA changes.

About Section 58 | No To Retrospective Taxation

Yes I remember reading this at the time thinking there but for the grace of god go I.

[Joolsey86]

call me pessimistic but i cant see anything changing. It didnt for S58 which was also retrospective and raised during the finance bill debate. The whole affect issue was sidestepped in favour of the usual "making people pay their fair share of tax" comments. To me its lip service, I do hope something comes of it but too many times ive seen this and sweet FA changes.

About Section 58 | No To Retrospective Taxation

Yes I remember reading this at the time thinking there but for the grace of god go I.

[smalldog]

About Section 58 | No To Retrospective Taxation

Yes I remember reading this at the time thinking there but for the grace of god go I.

Yep and when the govt was asked to explore impacts on the scheme users with the same issues as those facing the loan charge (bankruptcy, suicide, broken families) they said it would be too costly and time consuming and ultimately (here we go again!), they just want people to pay their fair share....ground hog day beckons.

[webberg]

Yep and when the govt was asked to explore impacts on the scheme users with the same issues as those facing the loan charge (bankruptcy, suicide, broken families) they said it would be too costly and time consuming and ultimately (here we go again!), they just want people to pay their fair share....ground hog day beckons.

There is I think a crucial difference. Whether it is enough to tip the balance I don't know.

With section 58, there was a very clear position from HMRC/Government that although the arrangements were understood and accepted as working as advertised as they followed a very literal interpretation of the law as it then stood, the law was poorly crafted and it was never the intention that the advantage be created. Consequently, retrospection was appropriate given that the disparity between written law and intended law, was essentially an error.

With loan schemes, Mel Stride and crew say that the schemes were always defective and that the law at the time (being for 10 years before the law even existed of course) was effective to prevent the "abuse". However, just to make sure, the loan charge is now to be introduced in order to "solve" the equation.

Subtle but important distinctions I think.